Have a simple question that needs answering? Feel like it's too little of a thing to make a post about? Worried the question is "stupid"? Worry no more! Ask anything and /r/photography will help you get an answer.

Please don't forget to upvote this and the other weekly threads to keep them on the frontpage longer. This will reduce the amount of spam and loose threads in /r/photography

That little button has a variety of options, namely what can be activated and then locked when you press and release it (auto exposure, auto focus, or both).

It also has the handy-dandy option of being used as your auto focus button instead of using the shutter release button, which activates both your auto exposure and auto focus by default. This is known as Back Button Focus.

My current setup is to use the AE-L/AF-L on continuous auto focus and shutter release half-press for AE lock. This allows me to lock focus with one button action, lock exposure with second button, and then fire the shot when I'm good and ready with a third button action.

This is for quickly getting the shot I want, however. If I have the time, I don't recompose at all, in order to ensure the sharpest focus. Rather, I keep the camera on the tripod, set my focus manually, do a quick and dirty matrix metering, adjust exposure if needed, re-check focus, then shoot with IR remote.

It depends on what I'm shooting, and what I want to accomplish in the photo. I usually do matrix metering, and adjust exposure compensation if needed, although I sometimes use center weighted. Rarely spot metering, although I do use it every once in a while.

Matrix metering = exposure decision is based on an average of the entire light in the frame (don't know if it's an actual "average"... it might be weighted more on one end of the light spectrum... dunno).

Spot metering = exposure decision is based on only the light in, well, a spot (i.e. a very small area of the frame). The spot is determined by the AF/AE point that you have selected, I believe.

Center weighted = like spot metering, although the area of the "spot" is larger. The size of the area can usually be changed by the user. I have mine kept on the Nikon D70's default of 8mm.

It's completely capable of taking good pictures, just keep in mind it's a stepping stone to a more serious camera system. Some people have gotten caught up with "iPhoneography," and now that Instacanv.as allows people to literally sell prints of instagrammed iPhone shots, the line between serious and hobby photography is sort of starting to blur. A lot of people aren't very happy about it.

Have a look here, the iphone 4 is pretty much the most used camera on Flickr for the last while, so I say why not. You may not have a lot of the features but you can definitely get some nice shots using anything. Go on ahead and play!

I like taking interior shots of run down houses and such. I usually use my 50mm lens to do this, as it's the best lens I have. My question is what should I do when I can't get something completely in the shot? For example, I'm in a room and want to take a photo of a chest of drawers. I can't get the whole chest in frame, and the size of the room prevents me from backing up further.

I've done some research on wide angle lenses and the first thing a lot of them say is the biggest mistake people make with wide angle lenses is using them to get more into a picture. They say that they are primarily for focusing on the foreground and not the background, that you have to get really close to avoid unwanted distortion, and that you'll usually end up with a picture that has some wacky perspective. So I'm confused, what do I do? I want the picture to look "normal" but I can't get the whole scene in the frame because of the room limitations.

Thanks for the suggestions, guys! I want to avoid stiching only because I take a lot of pictures. I'd like to avoid having to stich together every one of them. If I was only going for a shot or two, that might work, but I often take lots of photos. I know the 50mm isn't ideal, but there's usually only a few shots that I miss out on. I'd just like to not miss out on any.

I have a Canon, and it looks like they have a ton of lenses in the wide angle category. Would you guys suggest a fixed lens, like the 24mm or 28mm, or something with a range like 18-55mm?

I wouldn't exceed 24mm on a full frame if your looking for realistic representations of the space. Thats the general principal of architectural photography, not to unreasonably distort the space. That being said you could push it to 17, but you have to frame it carefully to avoid perspective issues.

Moderately wider lenses don't really give you the distortions you're thinking of. If you're looking at a fisheye, then yes, lots of distortion; however I have a 14-40mm that I love and use all the time. I'd recommend it. It gives a wide view and I think you'd appreciate the perspective, rather than find it distorted. And having the range between 14-40 will give you the opportunity to decide for yourself how wide you want it rather than being constrained by the prime. However if you plan on working in very low-light conditions, such as run-down buildings, maybe you want a faster lens, which is one of the benefits of a prime lens.
edit I have a cropped sensor too. 20D

Well of course you're going to end up with a picture with some "distortion and wacky perspective" if you're using quite a wide lens. That's the point. You're trying to fit as much as you can into your image. There's really no other way to use them to capture interiors. Unless you're using something close to a fisheye, it shouldn't be too bad. 50mm lenses are pretty useless for urban exploration (which it sounds like you're talking about). Well especially for small spaces. It would never be my sole lens when urbexing. Although I certainly do use my 50 when I'm out exploring too.

You could easily get the shot your looking for using your 50mm. Your basically just going to need to shoot several photos that encompass the view you are looking for and then stich them togeather using something like photoshop or Hugin.

You will need a tripod for this and some way to compensate for your camera and lens combos no-parallax point. The no parallax point is the center of your lenses entrance pupil. Basically you want to put that point directly centered on the axis of your tripod. If you don't you will have issues with parallax later when trying to stitch the photos together. I use this method professionally a fair amount when needing to shoot wider than my lenses will go or I need more pixels to print the image larger.

That being said, a wide angle would probably be an easier solution if you can afford it. I think it's fun though to be challenged like this when getting the shot though so I would probably just work with what you have.

I don't know what I'm doing. I expressed an interest in getting a dslr because the pictures coming out of my cheap point and shoot weren't all that great. My SO was nice enough to go out and pick up me a used camera and lense. Its a Nikon d7000, a 18-200mm nikon lens, and a 50mm f/1.8.

I'm looking at this thing and I just don't know where to start. I'm reading the manual, and starting to get to know what the dials and buttons do, but I have no idea why they do it or how to recognize when I would want to change settings. Are there any good tutorials out there for complete beginners? Or better yet, a nice long set of tutorials? I mean, if I have this decent camera I'd really like to learn how to use it beyond 'auto'.

I will likely shoot mostly family. I will also be spending a lot of time travelling around Asia and Europe so I'm hoping that I can learn enough about my camera to be able to take great photos of the amazing places I might not ever see again.

It's a great introduction to photography for somebody who has no idea what it's about, or for somebody who knows a bit and wants to get better.

Bonus: there are assignments to complete. I highly recommend that you do them to see how they look for yourself. You can also check out /r/photoclass or /r/photoclass2012a to see other people that a) followed along when he first presented the lessons, or b) started up this past New Year's since they missed the first offering. In any event, doing the assignments (and looking at others' submissions in those subreddits) will greatly add to the learning experience.

One more thing: don't be afraid of auto mode. Getting a shot of whatever's happening right now is often better than letting the moment pass while you fiddle with settings.

I'm not afraid of auto and after 177 what-does-this-button-do pictures, my cat would probably be very grateful if I used it. I just don't want to be limited to using only that because of never having learnt about anything else.

Rockwell cuts through a lot of the BS, which is helpful for beginners to get a foothold in the world of photography knowledge. So many websites already assume you know what you're doing, or that just playing with a camera will let you figure things out. If you don't know what those settings and modes mean, playing with the camera is not going to help. And yet once you have enough knowledge to have your own opinions on the whys and the hows of photography, Rockwell's site starts to seem like a parody of itself. Half the time I leave that site wondering if it's all a big joke and he's putting one over on us. Also, if the photos he has up on the site are examples of his best work, he is not even a very good photographer. In my opinion anyway. I suspect that's part of the joke.

The D7000 is a rather complex beast when compared to something like a point and shoot, or even a much older D40. My first DSL was a D40, but I use a D7000. Biggest learning curve seems to be focusing, but I'd say I don't go beyond the basics.

I'd recommend playing with the Shutter and Aperture priority modes before diving into Manual. I shoot a lot of dance events and find that Manual with auto-ISO is the easiest way to quickly adjust to different situations.

As intimidating as the camera's manual may seem, give it a review. If you have a bit of cash, I'd recommend the manuals written by Thom Hogan. Nikon D7000 Guide. This is a massive eBook, but very comprehensive and filled with lots of Tips. The Nikon D7000 to Go guide was also very handy.

Jared Polin ForKnowsPhoto is a Concert shooter who has lots of tutorials up on his site. He is primarily a Nikon shooter.

Lastly, look for local user groups. Flickr has several meet-up groups in my area (Toronto) so unless you are out in the middle of no-where, I am sure you could find one local to you. The people attending these meet-ups are generally very nice and eager to be helpful. They might come across as speaking a different language, but ask questions and don't be afraid to ask what may seem like a stupid question. You'll find the photo walks also a good way to learn more about your interests as a photographer.

The other recommendations are good and I'd also like to throw in a recommendation for the book Understand Exposure by Bryan Peterson. This is the book that finally made photography "click" for me. For any possible scene there are 6 or 7 possible ways to set your exposure - your camera in auto will choose one, but you may want to choose another. This book teaches you the why and how of different types of exposure.

If you weren't getting very good pictures out of your point-n-shoot, you might not get great pictures out of your DSLR either without learning a little bit more about exposure, how to use the manual modes, etc.

The book spends a bit of time on those, but the big things to remember are

Increasing the ISO means a faster shutter speed, but more "noise" in the photo

the "longer" the lens, the narrower the angle of view it has

The farther away you focus, the "deeper" the in-focus region gets,

The farther away you focus, the closer things seem to be, front-to-back, due to perspective (Think "telephoto pictures of baseball games" where the pitcher and the batter are about the same size, because the camera is further away from them than they are from one another. This is also why people get slightly "longer" lenses for portraits)

Hi /r/photography! What do you think is the best film for street photography? I'm currently using a Kodak gold 100 mostly because of its price but I'm sure there are much better options I have yet to try out. What's your recommendation?

Depends on what you want. Portra is good for skin tones, Ektar is good for strong contrast and saturation... other than that I can't think of any color negative stocks that stand out. For B/W, Tri-X all the way.

If you're going to be shooting primarily 35mm, there are lots to choose from.

Color negative films (C-41 process) are divided into the professional and consumer grades. Kodak Portra and Ektar are the professional grade versus the Kodak Gold you're used to. Fuji also produces consumer grade films in the form of Superia in various iso 100/200/400/1600, with the Superia 400 being a very good high-speed film quality for the money. Fuji 160S and 400H, 800Z are also very nice professional-grade films that have been tried and true for many years. There's really no wrong choice with any of these emulsions, provided they are not overly dated from the box expiration date. I personally find that Fuji color negatives yield pleasing results when slightly overexposed. Fuji Superia can be so cheap that I use them for testing purposes.

You may also consider trying out color slide/reversal film (E-6 process) before it dies out, even though they are pricier. Compared to color negatives, slide film requires more precise metering as to not blow the highlights. Again, Fuji and Kodak are the existing manufacturers and you have the same consumer/professional distinction in terms of offerings. Kodak has Ektachrome (professional) and Elitechrome (consumer), while Fuji has Velvia and Provia (and no more consumer brand with the end of Sensia). I find reds to be very appealing using Kodak Ektachrome. It's rather unfortunate that Fuji Astia was discontinued, as it was very nice for rendering skin tones, but Provia will suffice. Provia 400X is currently my favorite slide film in part for its color and also because itslow grain.

You've expressed some interest in C-41 black and white film. Kodak BW400CN, Ilford XP2 and Fuji Neopan 400CN are what's out there, all of them are decent and convenient in that they can be processed in any regular photo-lab, but once you get into traditional black and white films, the convenience factor is their only draw for me.

Traditional black and white films can be very cheap compared to negative and slide films, especially if one learns to develop their own films. If you want to learn and have control over the entire photographic process, this is the ultimate way. For each film type there are many developer combinations and development times which yield endless combinations and outcomes. The key for beginners is to strive for consistency in developing, so just sticking to one type of film and developer to start off. I began with Kodak TriX and Kodak HC110, but these days I find that I could get by even more cheaply (in my part of the world) with Rollei Retro 100 and Fuji Neopan 400 with Rodinal.

You might want to look here in /r/filmphotos and /r/analog if you have more film-specific questions. I've found that Flickr can also be a good reference source for previewing how certain films look, as many users there tag their images with the type of lens, film and if applicable development times.

Thank you so much for the detailed explanation!
I'm still new to the whole 135 flim world and I learned a lot. I'm putting the mentioned films in my eBay shopping cart at the moment. I think the best way to learn the film that suits me is to shoot through a roll of each kind. I'll check out the subs and the info you gave me as well :D Thank you!

can't deliver you a source, but (latest?) nikons keep the aperture stable during a burst and only trigger the shutter.

you can actually check it out yourself by doing a trial burst with aperture > f10 and keep on looking through the viewfinder – if what you see gets significantly darker while the mirror is down between the burst shots then the aperture is staying the same throughout.

As with everything.. it depends. How much did you pay for the t3i? How much would the t4i be? Would extra money go to lenses otherwise? Is this your first dslr? I bought a nikon d7000 less than a year after I bought my nikon d3000 because I wanted the extra options. Do you see yourself buying something like a 7d once you feel you've improved?

I just upgraded to a Canon 40D and now have a spare 350D. I want to get a water housing for the 350D as I'm really into surf photography. At this stage I'm not going to use my 40D in the water yet, so I'm really just looking for a cheap reliable housing to practice with. I will also use my 18-55mm lens on it. I've had no luck on eBay. What to do what to do?

Is there a travel insurance out there that covers non-professionals carrying their gear (D800, 70-200mm, 1.7X, 50mm).
I asked my home insurance policy and the 3000 pound camera is too high (as a single item) to cover while I'm abroad (going to greece for a month) I tried photographers' insurance, but they offer a year long contract with an 'extension' for cover while abroad (which isn't what I'm after).
what are my other, economically feasible, options??

I've had travel insurance from several different providers, they all offered maximum cover for one item like a camera of about US$800-US$1200. But they all allow you to add a named item to your policy of any value - you just pay a little extra to add insurance for your expensive camera to the policy. Have a chat with them, they'll be happy to help out.

Strictly speaking it should be the ability to reproduce something at least at the same size on a camera's sensor, so if you were taking the picture of a 6mm insect it should be 6mm on the camera's sensor.

you should get this with any prime that calls itself a macro. With zoom lenses it mostly means that it has a low minimum focus distance, you don't seem to get zooms that have a 1:1 ratio.

I'm using a Rebel T1i and I recently purchased a Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Lens. I'm liking it so far and managed to pull this picture off which was fun. My question is why can't the lens (or camera) focus on the entire subject? It seems like the focus area is very small which makes it difficult for me to get a clean shot. Thoughts?

Secondly, I would like to start taking portraits of people and need a suggestion for a portrait lens...if there is such a thing. How would this lens do? Amazon seems to love it, but I'm not sure how many of those reviews are from legitimate photographers.

And finally, what is your best tip when you're out shooting whatever it is that you shoot?

The size of the in-focus area is called depth of focus. It generally gets smaller as your aperture gets wider, as your focal length increases, and as you get closer to the subject. When you're super close at 100mm, depth of focus is very small. If you haven't already done so, try adding more light and stopping down the aperture. Otherwise, you have to use focus stacking.

The closer you are to your subject, the thinner your depth of field will be. If you want more of the subject in focus, either close your aperture as much as possible or 'focus stack' the image in post. Google 'focus stacking'

The 50mm 1.8 is an amazing lens for that price. If you have the dough handy, spring for the 1.4 for quicker/quieter focus and better build quality.

I know that this is not completely photography related, but is there an Android app that can help me with Photoshop shortcut keys on my tablet? I would love for something where I can press a button on my tablet (Galaxy Tab 2 7.0 to be precise) and it chooses the appropriate button in Photoshop, so I can get rid of that panel.

If you are looking at making money, take your very best shot and ask yourself "Who would buy this picture and what would they pay for it?" and then ask yourself "Would I buy this picture" and then go look what other people are asking for similar pictures... It is probably not a goldmine you are sitting on ;)

I COULD BE WRONG BUT I think you're being downvoted because you're a self proclaimed hobby photographer that is trying to make some money off your hobby. This is fine but it does seem to be something that is damaging the photography industry and many people who earn from photography full time want nothing less than more and more photographers charging minimal prices and making an extra bit of side cash when it's affecting the full time photographers' careers.

There is a major dilution of the industry at the moment, everyone and their mom is trying to be a photographer. For many who've chosen it as a full time career path (myself included, what the hell am I thinking), it's only getting harder and harder as more and more photographers are flooding the market every day.

ANYWAY, I'll try and give you a tip or two. Stock photo sites. Make your own site and sell prints. That is all. But honestly I would say keep it as your hobby.

Every time I see this argument by a "professional" photographer I cringe. If you're good at what you do, you justify your price by what you can offer and people will pay it if its fair. If more accessible technology allows people to offer the same quality of work for a cheaper price, then its up to you to either (a) readjust your prices, (b) decide if you can continue to have a professional future in your craft, or (c) show people why your work is valued $X and why it is better than someone who can offer it cheaper.

The argument against hobbyists offering their help for free is just nonsense. Show your value as a paid professional if you are threatened. I was thinking about this comment for a while and actually came back to post this example, I equate this line of reasoning with a mechanic being pissed that my friend helped me change my tire for free rather than me taking him the car and paying to have it changed.

It's not "damaging" the industry. That's complete BS. It's changing it, but that's the world. First, it happens in every industry imaginable. And second, its up to the individuals in that field to adapt to a changing market:

You might charge $3000 for a set of wedding shots, uncle Joe who bought a dslr and lenses might offer to do it for free. SHOW potential clients why what you are offering is worth more than what uncle Joe can do, don't whine that he shouldn't offer his service for free. Maybe he likes to photograph, maybe he likes to help out family, his motivation isn't your problem and your career, quite frankly, isn't his. Why are YOU worth $3000? If you really are, then clients will pay it. If a hobbyist can do just as good a job for free, then you may have to re-evaluate your career or business plan.

Telling someone who wants to make money off a hobby to just "keep it a hobby" because it might take away potential earnings from you is very unfair.

That was very well said. I'm on the border of this argument, myself. Not long ago at all I was ignorant to all things photography and desperate for any help anyone would give me. True, I wasn't out shooting weddings for free (never will I ever shoot a wedding). Now, I'm educated, equipped, and a tax paying professional. Trust me guys, I understand both sides. It is happening in all fields. I hope to man up, help those just starting, and do my best to be successful. I love helping others and love any advice offered my way. The truth is, we do this because we love it. We are here talking to each other about it in our free time because it is our passion. I know certain things get annoying to read over and over, but this thread is a safe haven for those questions. I'll do what I can for those who are seriously needing assistance. If a question runs me the wrong way, I'll just ignore it. I pray this subreddit can stay a positive place.

This is fine but it does seem to be something that is destroying the photography industry and many people who earn from photography full time want nothing less than more and more photographers charging minimal prices and making an extra bit of side cash when it's affecting the full time photographers' careers.

It's not really destroying the industry. It's just really annoying to see every one with a camera who has a nice macro of a flower think that they can sell their photos on the side for some money.

The hard part of photography is making money from the photos, not taking the photos themselves.

You see pro photographers all the time giving out really good tutorials on how to take photos and how to do X technique but never on selling or marketing; because that's where they really make their money.

I replied to electricllama to try and explain my reasoning so maybe read that. But yes, that is also included in it, the hobby photographers taking pretty photos and thinking they're of value. And they might be, to someone. But in reality, these days it isn't hard to get a "professional" looking image off even low price DSLRs and P&Ss. It's everyone trying to sell said images which yes, is a nightmare.

On your last point. I would totally agree, it's totally about how you sell yourself as a photographer and present and sell your images. That's how the successful photographers get to be successful. Again, I was purely trying to find a reason as to why this person was being downvoted for asked a question and this seemed to be the obvious thing. The making money on the side from their hobby thing. Blah, I'm not wording things well at all today. Apologies.

I have a question on the whole "destroying the industry" thing. I am an amateur with a D700 and about 50,000 shots under my belt. It is a hobby for me and nothing else. I shot my nephew's wedding for free (no stress there!). Their budget was maxed out, and If I did not do it for free, their wedding photos would have been done by everyone with an instamatic camera. I have no regrets, I didn't take the job from anyone and it was hella experience for me. I have a friend who just got married in Vegas, and it was a really nice wedding for Vegas. They paid a photographer $3,000 for the photos, but that bastard wanted another $1,500 for the copyright to all of the images. $4,500 for a 3 hour shoot, and I doubt that he had 3 additional hours into the project, because they met with him early the next day.

So, would you say that it is people like me or people like him who are destroying the industry?

None of you, as you said you didnt "steal" the work from anyone and as the wedding-photog bastard... Read the contract before you sign stuff. It sounds like a ton of money, but if they paid for it and are happy, it could be "cheap" for the couple.

If you don't think that everyone and their mom owning DSLRs and trying to make money off it is detrimental to the industry then you must be mad.

Of course a professional photographer should be offering the best of quality and services. But so many people know someone with a camera, that jobs a photographer would have been paid to do in the past, are being done by Uncle John and his 500D for free. I've had countless people ask me to do things for free for them, and depending on what it is, I will or won't do it. Take photos for my cousin's first communion? No problem. Take photos of a designer's clothes for a site for free? No way.

That's like asking someone who owns a bar for free drinks. That's how they make their money, it's insulting to ask for it for free. I'm probably not wording this the best but I don't think I'm wrong.

I also did not downvote that fella in the first place, I was just looking for a reason as to why he might have been and this seemed an obvious one. Because it is an issue in the photography world.

It's not detrimental to the industry, actually (I must be mad!). In an earlier post you wrote "There is a major dilution of the industry AT THE MOMENT...," but consumer-grade cameras have been manufactured by the millions since the 1960s. Obviously you nor I have the data to say, "But they weren't selling their prints like they are now..." What's truly detrimental to the industry is the educational system training journalists, art photographers, portrait photographers, etc etc by the droves and pumping them out into the field. The internet is "overrun" by tons of amateurs wanting to show their images, and that's a beautiful thing. Look at any "famous" photographer today - they didn't just walk out of school and into fame...you're not a professional photographer, because you have a degree. You're a pro, because you make your living off it. Robert Capa, for example, didn't make it as a writer (his initial field), but picked up photography, fell in love with it, and was able to find a market to sell his amateurish prints in the beginning. He started shooting around 1913 and didn't take his first published photo until the early 1930s... My point is, be a better photographer, stop complaining about "amateurs" (because a lot of those amateurs have something to teach you about your own work and are creating a vibrant, growing community of art), and find a way to market yourself in this industry.

Musicians, for example, don't go to weddings and look at DJs and scoff - yeah, live music used to be a big part of all weddings (think of any wedding before recorded sound), but when musicians started to become marginalized in that industry, we didn't pack up and put our violins, guitars, and drums in our closets and say, "that's it, we can't compete, we give up." It's very possible to be successful in the photographic industry, but you can't specialize in one type of photography in the beginning of your career - you have to do it all well and then, when people really want you for that one special niche, you can focus on that.

Woah buddy, what in the actual fuck. I was legitimately trying to be helpful.

I didn't jump down your throat, I saw you were being downvoted and offered a possible explanation. I actually wasn't even a bit rude to you.

Trying to dictate art and photography? What. Absolutely not. I never said that only professionals deserve money, feel free to sell your stuff, I even gave you two different ways of doing so. I was simply saying that the reason you were possibly being downvoted was because of the fact in this day and age, everyone is buying a camera and automatically thinks their work is worth something. I never said your work wasn't, photography is a hard thing to make money from, let alone a living.

I even highlighted the issue of professionals providing better quality and service. It doesn't mean that people won't chose a cheaper option first if the price is so much lower.

I'm actually flabbergasted at your aggressive comment.

Go fuck yourself. No one was jumping down anyone's throats til your comment just now, well done. How fucking rude.

I think it's just that your original post came across as complete self-promotion. That may not have been your intent, but it is how it reads. It was most likely downvoted simply because it was misconstrued as spam.

You should worry. Sand is one of the worst enemies of cameras. It can easily scratch glass (sand is, after all, glass), and has a way of working itself into every crack and crevice in your camera and stubbornly sticking there. I think the only recommendation is being aware of the potential risk and thus being safe with your camera. You can use it, of course, just don't toss it in the sand when you are done or even on a sandy beach towel if you can help it. Don't freak out about it or anything, you'll be fine, just be careful, especially with your lens. And, if you can help it, don't change your lens, as you really don't want sand to end up in there.

You can buy "waterproof" camera bags. This would keep your camera safe from the sand and even let you go in the water with it if you like taking risks. They seem to run about 50-80 bucks, so you'd need to decide if it is worth the money for you.

*I put waterproof in quotes because they are made cheap and are easy to puncture. Submerge at your own risk.

What do people mean when they say "this lens is faster than that lens"?

It means it has a wider maximum aperture. A wider aperture means it lets in more light, which means you're exposing your sensor or film faster / you can get the same exposure using a faster shutter speed. Hence the term.

Good quality generally means you can shoot your lenses wide open (highest aperture) and still be sharp corner to corner. Leica lenses are notoriously good at this. Most cheaper lenses are sharpest a few stops down their widest aperture. A prime lens is a single focal length, so you have to move your feet to fill your frame the way you want, which is a good thing, and these are generally better quality than zoom lenses. 'Faster' means they let in more light. Some people like that a lot for the 'bokeh' it produces, other people call it the lazy way out of compositional problems and a cheap way to emphasize the narrative. Usually Leica shooters are accused of being in that latter group.

Red ring around lens does not turn you into Ansel Adams, it will however show other people that you bought an expensive L-lens which has a high/pro quality = build like bricks, less flare, less distortion, higher aperture. Same goes with Nikons "gold" ring.

From a consumer/photographer standpoint, what is the significance of an aspherical lens? This seams to be a feature that lens makers frequently incorporate into the names of their lenses, like it might be important to me.

eg. "Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH"

Why would I, as a consumer/photographer, care if a lens is aspherical or not?

Aspherical elements help reduce chromatic aberrations. You may notice in some high contrast boundaries there may sometimes be a purple or green fringe. This is most obvious in cheaper cameras. That is chromatic aberration, and what aspherical elements help to eliminate.

My manual for my Canon 5D Mark III says that I HAVE to install the solutions disk before plugging my camera into my computer, I have never done this for past Canon cameras, and I don't have a CD-Drive in my PC so is it really necessary?

Canon has had a bad habit of making their cameras require a driver to be installed in order to transfer photos from them by USB. I like to use a card reader instead, since they're cheap and reliable by comparison (I can take it to a netcafe or friend's computer and download photos without installing any software). A good card reader can also download photos considerably faster than the camera's USB connection can.

I'm not sure if the 5D Mark III requires drivers to be installed, I know my old 450D did. In any case, I've uploaded my copy of the 5D Mark III solutions CD for you (162MB). It does at least include the helpful EOS Utility for shooting with your camera tethered to your computer, and Digital Photo Professional in case you don't have any RAW processing software yet.

My 5d mk III transfers photos fine without the normal software. I don't transfer photos of it much however. If you haven't invest in a decent but not expensive memory card reader, it will save you a good amount of time transferring the large raw files from the mk III.

So what is the community's opinion on the different stylized settings available on many cameras now? There are undoubtedly catchy at times, but I feel like everything will get compared to instagram, even if it is obviously better. Just curious the current general opinion in the photography world.

If your camera offers a facility to add one of these stylised settings after you've taken the snap and offers to save as a new image, then go for it.
My main fear for people using them is that they forget to turn it off.

Imagine touring through Paris for the only time in your life, to find that you shot everything in JPEG, and had the sepia filter applied...

Variable ND filters use two CPL filters that rotate to reduce or increase the amount of light that passes through. Wide-angle lenses used with variable ND filters will produce the same issues that you'll see with a normal CPL.

Looking to purchase a new camera when I get back to the states in August.
Currently, I use a sony cybershot DSC-W510 to take pictures of anything. I plan on keeping the camera since it fills its role well, but I want to make my next camera purchase on something higher end. I love my cybershot, but my only complaint is that it takes pretty soft pictures regardless of any tinkering I do in the settings.

I'm not sure if I'm ready to make the leap to DSLR camera status just yet, but I may do it if I find it's the best option to fill my needs.

I mainly take photos of people,pets, buildings, scenery and occasionally I take pictures of bugs.

Does reddit have any digital camera suggestions that may be able to meet my needs?

ps. Sorry if I wasn't specific enough in my post, I'll answer any questions you guys may have when I return from my lunch break.

Which "nifty fifty" (Canon 50mm f1.8) would you say is better, the original or the II. I have both and want to sell one. Not sure if one is considered better than the other. I can't tell the difference, but am thinking the first generation feels a little more solid. Thoughts?

I have a Rebel XT and my main lens is the Canon 50mm f1.4. I now "feel" my lens is better than my camera for 2 issues, auto-focus (slightly off on many photos) and low light issues. Will I get major improvements in auto-focus in the latest rebel line, should I jump to the 60D, or is there another option out there? [edit, i meant 60d not d60. thanks maxion]

Hi guys! I got a Canon 60D with a 30mm f/1.4 Sigma lens a few weeks back- I am kind of wishing I had a lens with some zoom on it. Is there a good rule of thumb for selecting a zoom lens that will work good for me? I do "hey pretty!" genre pictures. So I kinda though I could get away with a non-zoom lens, but really I've only been out like 3 times to take pictures and already hate having to walk up to things.

You're probably fine either way. Keep in mind, though, that a teleconverter isn't going to be as good as having a lens that goes all the way to 400mm. You may get decreased exposure, chromatic aberration, less sharpness, etc.

Let's say I am at an event with low light and I want to use this flash I have. It automatically sets the shutter speed to 60, but does that mean i can get away with iso 100 for a picture without motion blur? or do I need to raise the ISO to something very high that would give me 1/100ish?

I'm only just starting out with proper(-ish) photography. I have a middle range digital camera, but it's pretty much useless for actual photography as I have no control over aperture and exposure and the like. Should I get A cheap DSLR?

If I do get a DSLR, what's the cheapest camera I can get that isn't a total piece of crap (I'm in europe) / where's the best place to look for one online?

You might want to look into something like the Sony NEX series. They are IMHO the best of the mirrorless cameras on the market with nice big sensors that can suck up a lot of light. The lenses are priced to be approachable for the average consumer, the camera is really small, and it gives you full control over your picture taking but also includes the gee-whiz modes for beginners. They're great cameras for stepping into manual photography and you'll be amazed by the pictures you take.

I only really know the Canon side, but I'd say don't get anything lower than a EOS 400D or 20D. From my limited knowledge of Nikon, I'd say a D80 should be your minimum, just because it's got the autofocus motor which means you can buy cheaper used lenses and have them still autofocus.

I can't get my photos to look nearly as good as the photos look on my camera LCD screen. People always comment how incredible the photos look when I show them right after but then I go to download them and it looks stale and muted.

I shot RAW and would play with the vibrance, saturation, curves, tone, WB, contrast, etc.. but never got them to pop like they do on the LCD.

I know the camera does it's own post processing to show on the LCD and I tried doing RAW + JPG to see if the JPG got similar treatment but they weren't as good either.

Nikon does not have an equivalent of "L" branding - unless you count the $ marking (usually the higher $ number, the higher the lens quality :).

Best way to find out about any Nikon lens is to check the Nikon website and multiple third party online reviews.

All Nikon made DX lenses are marked DX - they are not strictly DX only however, and would work on an FX camera as well, but usually with significant vignetting and optical quality issues around the edges. However many FX cameras also support an optional DX mode which automatically crops the frame to DX size when you mount a DX lens.

Nikon has something sort of similar with their gold ring lenses. The gold ring signifies there nano coating, but it also is a fairly good rule of thumb for their professional lenses. It is seemingly applied at random in some cases though and some lenses lack it even though they are nano coated so it's a bit of a toss up.

Nikon does not have a special branding for their "super duper lenses". A good rule of thumb is checking through the different versions of lenses for the same focal length (a 50mm 1.4 has better IQ than a 50mm 1.8) and so on. Other than that, reviews, tests, samples.

Yes. DX lenses have the "DX" marking on them. They're a bit cheaper to buy, but are meant for a crop sensor. You can still use them on a full frame sensor, you'll just need to crop the image.

Yes, DX on the lens body for DX only (FX means fullframe, but will work on DX, as well). Usually you can tell by the aperture what type of money you might be investing - any zoom lens with a fixed aperture of 2.8 (or f4) throughout its zoom range is probably a "pro" or "advanced" lens. Zoom lenses that have varying apertures, like 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 are amateur type lenses. Other than that, just look up the prices for lenses and buy what you can afford.

A shoulder strap or neck strap is the easiest solution. The whole "bring your camera everywhere" idea isn't as effective if you have to dig the camera out of a bag first ;) That said, you might consider a simple slipcover so that you can put it in whatever bag you're carrying with you.

I am a somewhat experienced amateur photographer. I have a Canon D30 and 17-85mm lens which are currently both not working due to electronic malfunctions that I haven't wanted to shell out the money to repair, and while I don't fully know what I'm doing with the camera, I feel like I know enough to control enough variables that I was able to get some pretty decent shots.

Anyway, I'm also into backpacking, bike touring, and other such things where it's important for the load I'm carrying to be as light and compact as possible. A DSLR isn't ideally suited for this kind of thing for those reasons, also because it's more cumbersome to get out on short notice, and so on.

So my question is - what are some mid-range cameras I could look at that would be small and light enough to suit my purposes for backpacking, but still allow me some degree of the control over image quality that I had with a DSLR? In other words, the best compromise?

Edit: To clarify what I want to do with the camera - mostly landscape and wide-angle nature shots. Obviously I won't have the zoom capability for getting a lot of wildlife that's far away, but that's fine. Occasional closeups of plants and stuff as well, but mostly wide-ranging vistas, views of forests, from mountaintops, etc.

Lightroom has some extra features over Aperture, but that is mainly because it recently got upgraded to version 4. Aperture is still on version 3. Most of the missing features can be added to Aperture via plugins. For example, Lightroom now has built-in lens correction, but I just use the PTlens plugin for the few images that need it.

The main differences are in user interface, Lightroom has a modal interface in which you have different 'modes' for sorting, editing and so on. In aperture, all features are always available, but in Lightroom you might have to switch to a different mode if you want to edit an image or add keywords.

Aperture just recieved an update and is being featured heavily in current Apple ads, so there's bound to be a new version on the way.

I just bought a Minolta X-300 from a flee market yesterday. It's the first film camera I have bought in a LONG time - probably 10 years. I loaded up the film and started clicking. I used up the 36 shots in about two hours.
Now I wait for it to be developed. When I do get the prints back from the lab I'm assuming that some of them are not going to be at all what I had imagined them because after having a 'point and shoot' I honestly don't know much about the different settings besides the ISO #.

Any tips on the different settings and what they do would be awesome! In return I will upload my first batch of pictures when I do get them back.

The three aspects of a shot are iso speed, aperture setting, and shutter speed. Your Minolta should have a light meter in the viewfinder that indicates what your aperture should be set at based on your iso speed and shutter speed, so either set your aperture to what that meter indicates or change the aperture until the meter indicates proper exposure. Shutter speed should be chosen based on the subject; anything faster than 1/250th of a second should freeze motion, anything lower and you're risking motion blur.

Alright, I'm going for it. I have been shooting for well over a decade and know my way around the camera and dark room. That said, I just recently became interesting in shooting with a flash (Sunpak similar to the mid-range Speedlite) but I just can't get things looking right. I've tried bouncing off ceiling with limited success, cards taped to the flash, and even a little Cowboy studio wireless remote. Any tips on technique or metering that I should try. Especially throwing out the right amount of light. Thanks!

I'm relatively knew to photography, but I've taken as many pictures as I can and learned as much as possible in the few months I've had. I've got a few questions, hope they don't seem too ignorant.

I was wondering if there were any good camera I could get for ~$500 USD?

I typically only use the manual mode, when is it best to use the other priority settings?

I do a lot of low light photography (just exploring abandoned things) I typically leave my ISO on 800 and as low f/ as possible. A lot of the time that isn't enough, do you have any suggestions of how to get the result I'd like, or do I just need a better lens? Yes, I have a tripod, but I just don't like having to haul it around. Also, I don't like to use a flash because I love natural light.

I also have managed to get involved with the music scene and I do a lot of club photography, I want to get better it because I can make some serious money from that, but I don't know the first thing.. What is some advice you have for me? Maybe lenses, specific shots I should get, anything really.

Another problem I've had, that we've all probably had, is that people steal my work. I was wondering if anyone knew a good way to watermark photos? I just wanted to put my first and last initials in a corner of the picture so as to not detract from the image itself.

Thanks guys! I really appreciate any help you can give.

If anyone cares about what my pictures look like, you can check it out on my Flickr

Whats wrong with your current camera? Looking at your flickr they dont appear to suffer from "poor camera". Looks like you are shooting with a D90, thats a pretty good camera, not sure you can upgrade from that with 500$... Also saw a D80?

Well, manual is probably often slower than shooting in A or S, i shoot 90% in A.

I picked at a few random pictures and looked at the EXIF, you shooting with a 18-55 or 24-80 2.8-4? Maybe a 17-55 (pretty expensive) or a 35 1.8.

I use it to switch mode from RAW to JPEG, doesn't use it that often though, even though I should. So painful to just take lots of pictures for something non-artistic or seeing your family use the camera taking pictures in raw and then not editing it, resulting in dull and flat images...

I have a homemade 14" square lightbox, made of white posterboard/ paper. Right now I just use it as a backdrop though, and take photos in natural light. I'd like to get some lights, so I can take photos when it's not bright outside. Are there decent-quality lights I can get (maybe from Amazon?) for under $60 or so? Getting color-accurate photos is a priority. I'm using a Canon PowerShot SX230HS. Thanks!

I've been wondering something lately. I tried reading up on it but maybe I just didn't invest enough time.

So my question is, is the aperture diameter at a certain F-Stop consistant across all lenses? For example, is f/1.4 on a Leica M-Mount lens the same width as f/1.4 on a Canon 50mm legacy lens?

Thinking about it, I guess smaller digital cameras have smaller lenses, so how can they have f/2.0 on a tiny lens and on a larger lens be totally different sizes? I'm a bit confused now, maybe someone could help me out.

The aperture value is the relationship between the focal length and the lens opening. A 100mm lens with an aperture of F2.0 has a lens opening of 100/2=50mm. A 60mm lens with an F2.0 aperture has a lens opening of 30mm. So a long lens has a larger aperture diameter than a short lens for a given aperture value.

We moved up to a Canon T3i recently, after using a Canon S5 for so long. I'm improving in my abilities, and she's perfectly fine with leaving it on auto. Our little one just started soccer, and we've quickly found the limitation of the kit lens.

What would be an affordable (Sub-$300 US) zoom lens that will do a good job on auto for sports, and still have the oomph to do some more controlled work?

Just wondering what peoples input on either set up or a different all together, my goal is to have a lightweight system for light to moderate mountaineering. I have a 70-200 and would be putting a 40d or 5d mark ii on it. (that would be the maximum load I mean.) I am looking for something with moderate max height, and a sub ~8 inch minimum height so that I can get close to reflections in the field.

Does anyone have experience using FD to EF lens adapters? I have an old FD 50mm 1.8f that I'd like to try. How does "glass" make a difference and how would the FD/EF combo compare to a new 50mm EF 1.8?

I've had a very old tripod for the past couple of months without a quick release. It works so-so but lately i've been thinking about either getting a new tripod or a monopod. Thing is, the cheapest tripod I could find is $30ish while a monopod is $12. So my question is, which would be best? Obviously the monopod is a lot cheaper and transportable, but does any one suggest that I just save my money and get a tripod?

Hi, so i'm fairly new to dslr photography, got my first dslr (60d) for about a month now. And i'm looking to buy a speedlite. However, i dont know what to look for when buying a speedlite, can anyone give me some advice on what to look for when buying a speedlite?

Hello! I got myself a Canon 500D a couple of years ago, and although i love taking photos i have very limited knowledge on the subject. I've been taking mediocre pictures of my travels for said time. Recently, my girlfriend grabed some pics i took off my hard drive and tried to print them. I had thought about doing this for some time. I had thought with the high megapixel count of the camera i'd be able to print to multiple ft x ft without any problem. This was not the case. When she took it to a printer. They said they could print an 8x10" print before losing resolution and the photo becoming a grainy mess. Is this true? I wanted to make my pictures huge. Now im disapointed. Can someone explain to me how i can get a good resolution photo at multiple ft x ft? Any other info on the subject would be great. Thanks r/photography! (I am alittle drunk at this point in time, hope grammer is ok)

When you print images, you want about 300 dpi (dots per inch) for the best quality. 1 ppi (pixel per inch) is basically the same a 1 dpi, so at the maximum resolution of the 500D, 4752 x 3168 , you'd max out at around 15x10in. Honestly, though, you could do lower resolution like 200 dpi and still be fine. But for huge images how do you get around this problem of printing really low dpi? Well, you don't. However, if you are printing larger images, you look at them from farther away. The farther away you are, the less you perceive the pixellyness. Around 150 dpi would be lowest I would go, giving around a 20x30in. poster. Going bigger than that is pretty much trial and error and what you think looks ok. But no matter what, if you get close to the poster, it WILL look very bad.

You certainly can print much larger than 8x10 with a 500D. At 300ppi (professional standard) you can print at 10.56x15.84 inches. But it isn't necessary to print that high of a ppi unless you are going to examine your pictures under a microscope. Realistically, you could still print at 150ppi and get good results. This leads to a print of 21.12x31.68 inches. That is quite large infact yet still good quality. To give you an idea of the quality, your monitor is likely around 72ppi.

However, lets say that you wanted to print 4x5 feet. You certainly couldn't print that large while still retaining sharp detail when examined up close, but you don't need that as a 4x5 feet print is meant to be seen from a few feet away and not upclose. The trick is that you need to upsample your image before printing that large so that no pixels show up in the final print. The final image would be 18,000x14,400 pixels if you wanted to print at 300ppi (which is huge).

So you can print much larger than 8x10 safely. I would feel comfortable up to 2 feet on the short edge for high quality prints.

Edit: old 35mm film cameras had similar if not lower resolutions to work with and yet they could print larger than 8x10

Edit2:If your photos aren't sharp, then you won't be able to print as large.

This girl I know wants me to take "artsy nude photographs" of her and while I've had my SLR for a few years, I'm only just getting a DSLR in the mail this week. (Purchased a t2i from H&B a few days ago). My question is two fold: What are the differences between film and digital that I should watch out for, and any tips with switching? Second, what is a good resource to shoot models, especially nude? Any advice, tips, or ideas? I've been doing some research for classy photos, and over all reading as much as I can and trying to find poses that would work.

Watch the highlights. Digital is much less forgiving than film (similar to slides, but blown highlights are ugly in digital). The T2i is also an aps-c size format, not 35mm so everything will feel a bit cramped when using the lenses you normal use. If you haven't heard yet, shoot raw and process the final image in dpp, acr (lightroom or photoshop), capture one, ufo raw, or something similar. You will get much better results than JPEG.

Other than that, just light like you normally do and you should be fine.

What YouTube channels/podcasts/websites do you recommend for consistent photography content? I love /r/photography, of course, and DigitalRev, and sometime Canon Rumors if I want to know about a new product.

My question is about light meters: how do you take the information that they provide and use it in your camera settings? Are they necessary for properly-taken photos? Would it be worth investing in? (I'm an amateur college photographer, aspiring to eventually own my own studio.)

Every modern camera has one built-in. All digital have. Older camera, mostly film, may not. For those it's pretty much indispensable unless you've got some kind of talent for eyeballing any combination of light, speed, aperture and iso.

As for how it works, you set the device to the same iso as the film in your camera, select an aperture and place it in front of the part of the subject you want to capture. It will give you a readout for an appropriate shutter speed. And vice versa.

Is there a good iPad app for editing .RAW files? I'm traveling around Japan doing some photojournalism and need to pass on a few files to people. I usually edit at home using Lightroom or photoshop, just basic stuff, slight exposure, colour or crops.